30 / 414
服務主導邏輯之共同生產：前置因素與結果因素
30
interactions with service providers by including them in the value-adding process, which
helps service providers develop their understanding of customer demands (Yim, Chan, and
Lam, 2012; Sashi, 2012). Given that investment services place more emphasis on experience
and credence attributes, their customers are mostly interested in the service processes and
interaction (Karantinou and Hogg, 2009). Therefore, customers and investment consultants
collaborate with each other to produce positive outcomes and to learn from each other
(Glückler and Armbrüster, 2003).
2.3 Asset Specificity
Asset specificity refers to the physical capital that is invested in a particular party,
which redeployment entails significant switching costs (Heide, 1994). This antecedent
comprises six dimensions, namely, human, physical, site, dedicated, brand capital, and
temporal asset specificity (Williamson, 1985). This study focuses on the adaptations and
resources that are deployed by service providers in tailoring their skills, product designs, and
service processes to their relationships with specific customers. Transaction cost economics
assumes that production efficiency requires specialized assets that are embedded in the
organizational routines, language, and skills, as well as the assets that are critical to the
performance of an organization (Poppo and Zenger, 1998). Asset specificity can lead to
situations in which the party is locked in the transaction (Williamson, 1981). Low asset
specificity is observed when few information and knowledge is exchanged between
customers and service providers (Arnold, 2000).
Transaction cost economics views asset specificity as an important facilitator of value
co-creation in interfirm exchanges (Robertson and Gatignon, 1998; Williamson, 1985).
Supportive governance mechanisms must be aligned with settlement agreements because
firms that employ specific assets evaluate their performances and safeguard themselves from
additional problems (Williamson, 1981). Therefore, firms that invest in asset specificity tend
to build a tightly knit knowledge coordination system (Mesquita, Anand, and Brush, 2008).
Subramani and Venkatraman (2003) argue that asset specificity in an exchange is related to a
higher level of integration. Such specificity creates high quality value in customer service
provider relationships rather than in other contexts, hence motivating co-production. In other
words, when both parties commit asset specificity, it is in their best interest to co-produce
(Zhang et al., 2012). Thus:
H1: Asset specificity will have a positive effect on co-production.